Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Scott Roeder Found Guilty of First Degree Murder

It was as predictable as the whole case was tragic. Scott Roeder walked up to late-term abortionist George Tiller in church and executed him. All Roeder could do was try to get convicted of a lesser charge. All it took the jury was 37 minutes to conclude the obvious: Roeder acted in a premeditated and cold-blooded fashion.

True, Tiller was a murderer. He made a comfortable living murdering babies during late term abortions. But did that give Roeder moral authority to act unilaterally to save the lives of babies from Tiller’s abortuary? Are there parallels between Nazi state-sponsored killing and state-approved abortions? Is Roeder a modern day John Brown?

Probably yes to both.

But murder is not the answer. Nazism and slavery were ended when nations had enough and resorted to the morally lawful use of military force. Vigilantism is not the way. Executing Roeder before an entire congregation inflicted untold trauma on all who were there.

Then there is the question of God’s salvific plan for Tiller. Where was Tiller on the spiritual road? In the quiet of the night did his conscience prick him? Had he begun to weary of the tide of innocent blood rising around him? Might he have converted and become an ardent defender of life? Might such a conversion have accelerated Roe’s demise? Did Roeder short-circuit a grander plan, ultimately condemning far more babies to death in the final analysis?

We’ll never know this side of eternity.

But God loved George Tiller too. Jesus died for his sins as much as for Roeder’s and mine. God desired Tiller’s salvation as ardently as any other. That’s why we must always bear in mind that the end never justifies the means. We must employ just means toward just ends.

Roeder made the same mistake that Tiller made. He deconstructed the human identity and status of another in order to take his life.

Today nobody won in Kansas. Tiller’s family is without a husband and father. Babies continue to die. A misguided man will never see another day of freedom with his family. A congregation that witnessed a murder will never shake the experience. And an abortionist who might otherwise have converted, as so many have, was cut down before we’ll ever know.

Like this:

Related

5 Responses

I often think back to my involvement in the prolife movement in the 1980’s when there was a great deal of activism then – and not alot of it was legal (not on my part, mind you).

I honestly believe that God doesn’t bless such actions and certainly not the bombing of clinics and the murder of men and women, even though they be murders, 10,000X over.

Justice is the Lord’s. Our duty is to fight an honest fight and to pray.
Imagine if someone had killed Bernard Nathanson prior to his prolife conversion.
Silent scream wouldn’t have been made and there would be one less Catholic and repentant soul.

Well said Gerard. There is nothing more any fellow citizen could ask from a man of your convictions. You are on much firmer ground than anything I saw from NARAL and the organizations that run in the same orbit, which seemed to have a hysterical proclivity to issue press releases on every procedural decision the judge made, not to mention the verdict. That undermines the entire notion that this is a murder trial, not a trial about abortion.

A courtroom is not an arena for competing advocacy groups to look for positional advantage. Courtroom procedure, when it is followed appropriately, gives every defendant exactly the same process, no matter what their connections, fan base, or motives. The judge did an excellent job in my opinion, and the jury showed a good deal of common sense.

I tried to picture, what would I have said if I answered the phone at NARAL and found a reporter on the other end? I wouldn’t have been there — NARAL and I are about as far apart in our understanding of what “choice” means as you and I are apart in our understanding of what a human being means. I would have had to ask “Why are you calling me? This was a murder trial. My thoughts are nothing special or relevant. He’s innocent or guilty, no matter who likes it or doesn’t.” But, NARAL already passed up that chance for the high road, actually seeking the limelight.

He’s gotten several. For people with such opposite views, Dr. N and I are almost a mutual admiration society. We both generally manage to avoid the name-calling and character assassination that has made civil discourse on this subject so rare in the last couple of decades.

P.S. What is the meaning of “Headline Bistro” anyway? I’m usually accused of running on at length, not of throwing out a headline without explanation.